Dave

FAQ Talk: The Print Edition

EDIT: It seems that WizKids is retracting a LOT of the recent rulings that went out. So take any of this with a grain of salt. It seems that nothing will be official until the 2.0 version of the FAQ comes out. That said, we'll leave this post up for posterity - and then perhaps we can compare notes once the true rulings have been revealed!

Usually we save FAQTalk for the audio podcast. Strangely, as you'll find on Thursday, we didn't include one this week - and it turns out that was a good idea, because we have new information!

WizKids has loosened their lips and clued us in on a few different contentious issues.

The have also revealed an email -dicemastersrules@necaonline.com - that you can use to contact them with questions. They say that this is going to be THE official source moving forward for items that have not yet made it to the FAQ.

Let's take a look at what we know now:
[prbreak][/prbreak]

<h3>ALL combat damage is simultaneous, whether it is hitting a character or player</h3>

This one exploded on multiple threads over on Board Game Geek. The crux of the argument dealt with the fact that WizKids seemed to indicate in the rules that damage to players happened last. The other side pointed out that the paragraph starts with "all damage is simultaneous" and then went on to describe all of the cases that they thought to be relevant within that.

WizKids has confirmed that it all does happen at the same time:

"All damage assigned during the Assign Damage portion of the Attack Step is assigned simultaneously, whether it is assigned to a character or a player."

To me, this makes sense. If I'm adding four ingredients to a mixing bowl and then beating them, it doesn't matter which order I put them in, it just matters that they're all there. Still, the recipe is going to list them in steps because it's a limitation of that medium.

There was a longish thread about this one too, where some players argued that since KO'd dice go to the prep area, resolving invulnerability means that they're fielded anew. WizKids responds:

"Characters returned via the Invulnerability basic action are not fielded. "When fielded", as described in the rulebook's lexicon, takes place when you pay a character's fielding cost"

This also would likely indicate that Rally will not trigger any "when you field a character" abilities, since even the special cases noted in the FAQ still resolve moving the die from the reserve pool.

I think this one is sensible as well. Invulnerability never lets dice move out of the field and, as I indicated in a previous post, simply replaces "KO'd dice move to prep" with "KO'd dice return to the field."

<h3>Mr. Fantastic's common gets KO'd </h3>

On the one hand, this saves his rare from irrelevancy, but also means that I don't see any reason for bringing the common beyond the global ability. This one was posted on another fan site, DiceMastersRules.com.

"Correct. Mr Fantastic Brilliant Scientist would lose his bonuses as soon as he is returned to the field and be KO’ed."

Though I've lobbied for the other interpretation, I do understand the logic. What I don't get is the point of the card.

<h3>When To Stack</h3>

This came up in a small way when I did the Nick Fury preview. I initially thought that his WW2 Veteran iteration could give a stacking bonus. Then I didn't, and others agreed, and I corrected the post. However, WizKids has spoken!

"If there is a limit to stacking, it will be pointed out on the card. If the card doesn't specifically state a limit, there isn't one. For example, three Nick Furys would provide +3/+3 to all other Avengers."

This makes me want to play around with that one - I usually use "Mr. Anger" on Avengers teams, but I'll have to give WWII Veteran a go now.

* * *

These are just a few responses that are out there, and we're awaiting a few of our own. Have you heard from this WizKids account? Let us know in the comments!

Comments

John Redmond imported
-
07-08-2014 02:33 AM

WizKids' response to the Nick Fury - WWII Veteran question makes no sense - it directly contradicts the rulebook for no apparent reason. According to the manual, Pg. 19 under Active & Fielded, it says:

'When game text says, “While active,” that means “When one or more of this card’s dice are in the field.” In other words, when dice of that character have been fielded, the effect on the card takes place. It takes place only once, no matter how many copies of that die are fielded.'

So the manual already answered that question - the card does not have to explicitly state it has a stacking limit because the rules already do that (such text, apparently, only appears on other such cards as reminder text). Nick Fury - WWII Veteran is just another &quot;While Active&quot; effect, so to claim it stacks will require them to issue errata either to the rulebook or to the card itself. So I'd wait until the next FAQ is out before trying this in any tournaments.

Trevor Roberts imported
-
07-08-2014 10:07 AM

I think the Common MR. Fantastic is still useful between his global and low cost he's a great &quot;anti-trample&quot; card and I'll still keep 2 dice on him.

Nick Fury - WWII is more interesting as now it elevates the usefulness of Black Widow (and Hawkeye to an extent) in the mid game. I'm not sure if it will make him a must add in an avengers build as many cost so much that Mr. Anger is still better choice, but in a BW rush build now has an option when moving to mid game.

Riptide imported
-
07-08-2014 10:14 AM

I agree on the Mr. Fantastic - Brilliant Scientist. He is an anti-trample option that only costs 3 to purchase, instead of the fairly prohibitive 5. Of course, I doubt either one would see much play without the global.

Trevor Roberts imported
-
07-08-2014 10:49 AM

Also based off the way that Nick Fury was ruled I would guess that Venom &quot;Angelo Fortunato&quot; and Captian America &quot;Sentinel of Liberty&quot; would stack as well (though both are 6 cost not really likely 2 are out).

Also I would have to say all of the Professor X &quot;pay life to prevent&quot; would stack since they are not stated to be limited.

I'm sure there are others and the fact that all of these are 5/6 cost helps curb the issue. Again I think that it was an odd and unnecessary answer/ruling as the rules clearly state it doesn't tack unless otherwise stated.

Jonathan Ramos imported
-
07-08-2014 11:44 AM

Is trample really a concern in the game at this point. I don't think is easy to use, nor is it necessary to account for (so far)...

Tom Landy imported
-
07-08-2014 12:25 PM

I agree, this one is already in the rules and this new ruling contradicts those rules. Are they even reading their own rule book???

Horatio imported
-
07-08-2014 01:09 PM

We got WizKids'd

Tom Landy imported
-
07-08-2014 05:16 PM

They have retracted this ruling. Apparently the janitor walked by the computer and thought it was fun to mess with people.

Dusten McAdams imported
-
07-09-2014 01:05 AM

As much as I wish Professor X could stack, his cards do say &quot;pay 2 life to prevent this effect for the rest of the turn&quot; so I think they got lucky with wording on his cards . I can't wait for FAQ 2.0! I'm ready for a 30 page PDF at this point

John Redmond imported
-
07-09-2014 04:31 AM

Yup. As the edit on the article says, the rulings issued thus far have been retracted. According to 1havok12 on BGG, he got the following message...

&quot;Recently a number of rulings were sent out regarding Marvel Dice Masters that were not put through our normal process with our rules team. As a result, please disregard the previous answer you may have received. We look forward to getting out answers to those we can, when we can. We apologize for the confusion, and appreciate your understanding as we improve our process to make Dice Masters everything it can be.

So, don't hold your breath on Mr. Fantastic being useless, Nick Fury stacking, and pretty much anything else that isn't explicitly spelled out in the rulebook or FAQ. We'll have to wait a bit for the next FAQ.

Stephen Mitchell imported
-
07-09-2014 09:43 AM

Let's also not forget that in the rulebook (not sure where) it states that card text takes precedent over the text in the rulebook. So the fact that NF:WWII doesn't state a limit per dice (as many other cards do), means stacking should be allowed. That's always how we interpreted at my house. Because some of the cards specify that abilities aren't &quot;per die on the field&quot; if it doesn't state it in the text, we assume it works for each die out there.

I'll gladly wait for FAQ 2.0 to come out to get an official ruling though just to clarify.

Stephen Mitchell imported
-
07-09-2014 09:48 AM

It's all about the wording and I think that's why in the rulebook they say if there's a conflict, the card text wins out over the rulebook. There's no 'secret language' in my opinion, that's open to interpretation. If you take it in a literal sense, it can clear up a lot of issues. There is a reason cards that have similar effects are worded differently.

Example: While some cards have abilities that take effect when a character attacks, Punisher McRook's ability activates when he's 'assigned' to attack. So he doesn't actually have to attack for it to go in effect.

Horatio imported
-
07-09-2014 04:54 PM

This is not correct. The rules actually clearly state what &quot;when active&quot; means and they explicitly say that multiple copies of a die do not mean that an ability stacks (see page 19). For this rule to be ignored and stacking to be allowed, the card text would need to expressly contradict the rules, which it does not do.

Dave imported
-
07-09-2014 09:12 PM

100% with you there Horatio. The &quot;card supersedes the rules&quot; only matters when discussing what the cards DO say, not what they DON'T say.

Dave imported
-
07-09-2014 09:13 PM

It's kind of a shame how useless every single Mr. Fantastic is.

Dave imported
-
07-09-2014 09:14 PM

Stephen, that's not true. Neither one works quite that way. The first part of the attack step is 1. assign attackers 2. abilities that happen because of someone attacking trigger.

Both McRook and your example card who triggers when the character attacks would trigger here.

Stephen Mitchell imported
-
07-10-2014 04:53 PM

Let me clarify my example, as re-reading it I wasn't providing all the information I had in my head. It's one of those cases where I assume people know the whole situation. My apologies.

If McRook is assigned to attack but my opponent uses a global ability to remove him from the attack zone, he was still 'assigned' and therefore his ability is activated.
Whereas if Storm &quot;Goddess of the Plains&quot; is assigned to attack and then removed from the attack zone, her ability would not activate because she didn't actually attack.

I think the difference in wording has value here.

Stephen Mitchell imported
-
07-10-2014 04:56 PM

Okay, I'll have to look at that again. I must have skimmed over it and missed that, or ignorantly just put the rulebook down after reading that card text takes precedent.

Thanks for correcting me.

Dave imported
-
07-10-2014 10:44 PM

Stephen - that still doesn't do it. The abilities would trigger the step before anyone has the ability to play something like Distraction. So someone couldn't distraction McRook away as soon as he was assigned because actions/globals can't be played until after the &quot;declare blockers&quot; step.

Stephen Mitchell imported
-
07-11-2014 11:18 AM

Thanks for clarifying Dave.

I think I got into a habit of playing those globals like 'Instants' at my house. My friends and I are so used to the M:TG engine that we see it as an ability to activate when it suits our strategy. I'll need to go over the rules on globals one more time to see when a player is allowed to activate them.